Monday, March 28, 2011

There is a particularly pervasive trope that is often bandied about the blogosphere...it is a straw man argument, and frankly, I'm tired of it.

This is the meme that many Men are pining for the 1950's. That we think the 50's were utopia, and if only we could 'go back' to that era, everything would be just fine.

Conversely, we have the other side of the coin - that the 1950's were utterly horrible for women, and that it's because the 50's were so horrible that the 60's sexual and cultural revolution was inevitable because of just how bad the 50's were.

Both of these caricature descriptions of that decade are shibboleths that need to be put to rest once and for all.

What the 50's were, was the last hurrah of a pro-family, pro-monogamy, pro-American ideal message transmitted via mass media culture.

The Father role was not undermined in sitcoms...it was upheld and revered. You had a show entitled "Father Knows Best."

The role of housewife was not demeaned, and chaste, virtuous motherhood was the primary female role model.

Children were portrayed as respectful of their elders and well behaved.

This cultural programming did not create a perfect society. Indeed, perfect society is a pipe dream that will never be possible. Ever.

But the mass media culture of the 50's served one very important function: it reinforced the norms and values of an orderly society in which people clearly understood the roles and expectations they were to aspire to when they reached adulthood. It channeled both male and female sexuality into the society building, civilization affirming, nuclear family. It portrayed Patriarchy as benevolent and ideal...an institution to aspire to.

Most shows of the era did in fact follow the general principle that Father does indeed know best. It did not undermine or seek to overthrow the importance and necessity of the role of Dad in the family.

If a show where to be made with that same title by today's Hollywood Babylon, it would most likely be about a pedophile priest defiling young boys with an incessant laugh track and glowing reviews.

Other than that, you'd be hard pressed to find a competent, sage, still married and admirable Father character in the mass media culture today. No, now it's all about girl power, career women, super-mom's with bumbling idiot husbands and fathers who need to be set straight by all the females in their lives...from their prepubescent daughters to their old ladies, representations of family men in today's modern day culture now basically has devolved into "Father Doesn't Know Shit."

Contrast that with today's mass media cultural programming... I guess it's stupid for people who actually value Fatherhood and the institution of the Patriarchal family and the civilized society it engendered to wish we could turn the clock back to that era, eh? Better to "keep it real" and revel in the pervasive depictions of broken families, familial dysfunction, emasculated fathers dominated by super-women, and career women having it all.

Does art imitate life...or life imitate art?

Or does the so-called "art" of our cultural mass media, actually program life?

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

It was the initial discovery of a now defunct blog called "The Reality Method" that was my first "red pill" with regards to Game. I have no idea who that blogger was, but I read his entire blog and archives back in 2007 when I first discovered it. He had one post that was the ultimate eye opener for me, entitled "What is a Shit Test?"

Reading and understanding that post was THE paradigm shift in my understanding of female hypergamy, DHV, AMOG, and all of the other theories and jargon one encounters when they first discover "Game" on the internet.

While The Reality Method is long gone (not even google cache has it), I saved a few of his postings that were pivotal in helping me gain an understanding of "Game."

Here's what I saved from that classic post: "What is a Shit Test?"

“Passing Shit Tests – the Formulas that works 100% of the time:

As it turns out, there are a couple of ways you can pass a shit test, strike through the Gordian knot / slip between the horns of the dilemma.

1. Ignore it

Pretend you didn’t hear. Laugh it off or just pay attention to something else for a second. Let it roll off your back like water on a duck. This sounds easy, but to do it fully 100%, you have to really be totally nonreactive – I’m talking about down to the level of unconscious pupil dilation here. Otherwise she thinks you’re just avoiding answering – which is better than answering, but is still not going to make her very attracted to you.By ignoring it totally, though, you are saying in effect, “I won’t be tested. I totally refuse.” Which is dominant, but still a very blatant cop-out. Which is why I’ll only use this method as an absolute last resort, if I really am caught off-guard and blindsided by some test.

2. Agree and Amplify

If a girl says “I’m fat,” then “Yes, you’re HYOOOOOGE.” Or “It’s just more cushin’ for the pushin’.” Agree and Amplify; show her you’re not afraid to piss her off, but do it in a playful way. Don’t INSULT her; poke fun at her (gently). The worst you’ll get is a swat on the arm and that is proof that she is more attracted, not less.

Some people might also call this a “reframe”; a term which I believe is probably borrowed from political discourse terminology. You’ve taken her frame (the shit test) and turned it into something entirely different and non-threatening.

For instance, if she says, “You’re a tough guy, aren’t you?” You might say, “Yeah, so what is it you like about tough guys anyway?” Deliberately mis-interpreting her question as adoration, not a shit-test.

Reframing / Agreeing and Amplifying is powerful. It’s my preferred method of answering shit tests. It demonstrates that not only are you not needy / logical, but neither are you willing to fall into her trap and try to lie to her face.

Being able to sidestep the shit test is one of the most important aspects of interacting with women. Without this knowledge, you will get shot down / disqualified 95% of the time by truly “hot” women automatically, without them even thinking about it. I’ve written a lot lately about more “advanced” topics like bisexual girlfriends and threesomes, but I really think this post, and getting this one area handled, is responsible for guys getting into better interactions, more quickly, than all the advanced sex-theory I will *ever* write.

Ultimately, we should be glad for shit tests. They help ensure that every woman we met hasn’t already been plowed up one side and down the other by 15,000 other random guys.”

With more and more people discovering these concepts every day, I sometimes forget that I have been reading and internalizing the concepts of game for over 4 years now, and there are plenty of newcomers that still struggle with the concepts. Many men are angry when they discover the definition of a shit test. Many deny that it is an intrinsic part of a woman's psycho-sexual makeup...that "real Women" don't shit test. They couldn't be more wrong.

The Shit Test is how women screen the worthiness of potential mates. It is hard-wired in their psyche, in exactly the same way the male's primary means of screening potential mates is based on his visual assessment of her genetic suitability.

Getting angry at the female instinct to shit test is the equivalent to getting angry at the sun for rising in the East. It is an intrinsic part of woman-hood.

Susan Walsh pulls up an excellent example demonstrating this from her own past in a post she submitted to VD's Alpha Game as well as posting it at HUS.

It is a personal account of a boyfriend she had when she was 14 years old. Despite his good looks and her initial crush on him, he "beta-ized" rather quickly and killed her attraction for him. Without even conscious realization, Susan recalls giving him a shit test that he failed spectacularly. Despite her conscious desire to not be cruel to her boyfriend, she literally could not help her feelings of disgust and contempt when he failed her shit test.

There was a lot of anger and contempt expressed by commenters on Susan's post. These upset men fail to grasp the concept that his was not Susan's fault. It was not some great moral failings of a cruel 14 year old girl blithely dumping a boyfriend who was in mourning. The failure from her story comes from a society and culture that brainwashed her doomed ex-boyfriend into believing that showing his vulnerable side and communicating his fears and sorrows to her, and doing whatever ridiculous notion she requested was the key to attaining a lasting romantic and loving connection with her.

People seem to forget a basic fact of life for both males and females alike: attraction is not a choice. When you fail a woman's shit test, she cannot help the unattractiveness cue this gives her...anymore than a man who recoils in disgust at the thought of sexy time with an obese Wal-Martian.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Susan Walsh thought she would do a quick throwaway posting of an xkcd cartoon about a "Nice Guy" trying to gain a relationship by befriending a woman (rather than directly attempting to seduce her), and was surprised at the amount of debate and discussion it generated in the commentary.

The first amusing thing, is Susan's initial reaction to the cartoon:

The scary thing is, this guy’s reasoning makes perfect sense to me! It seems like such a good strategy! Aarrggh, why do chicks dig jerks?

Chicks don't dig jerks. They dig Alpha psyco-sexual and social dominance. Many "jerks" have those Alpha qualities...but not all men with those qualities are "jerks." Women will put up with an Alpha's jerk behavior in the same way men will put up with a bitchy, shallow woman -- if she's hot enough.

As far as strategies go....from the male perspective, it is not a good strategy at all. I think Susan deems it so, because she thinks "nice" guys are desirable. She's mistaking alpha guys who are nice (which probably describes her husband), for the fearful, passive-aggressive, effeminate strategy of the "nice guy" in the comic.

Note the "nice" guys rationale in his thinking:

See, I don't want to consider that you might not be attracted to me. I'm scared of rejection, so I've decided relationships should grow smoothly out of friendships."

Scared of her rejection? That automatically shows you that he's already put her up on a pedestal. He also lets fear dictate his decision making...which shows that he's letting his emotions dictate his behavior. That is not masculine behavior at all.

When you have problems, I'll be there for you, night after night. Selflessly.

"Selflessly?" This guy is playing the emotional tampon for her in the hopes of gaining access to her without her clothes on. That's what you call "selfless?" This is an example of the the male rationalization hamster getting warmed up for a run on the wheel.

I'll tear down the jerks you date, and wait for you to realize how good I am for you.

That's as passive-aggressive as you can get. Is this "nice?"

Maybe to a woman that's "nice," since female social interaction usually involves a level of fake niceties when confronted with female rivals. For women, that's par for the course. For men, that's effeminate and cowardly.

Before I knew better, I used to have female friends who would come to me and complain about the "jerks" they were dating (and no, I was not being their friend because I was hoping to hook up...these are friends who I know after having been married. I'll get to this idea of "real" opposite gender friendship in a future post.) I used to commiserate, offer condolences and play at being "understanding."

Not after having taken the red pill.

For the past several years, whenever a female friend started complaining to me about her boyfriend, I put the responsibility squarely on her shoulders.

"You picked him as your boyfriend. If he's that terrible, than why are you still with him? No one's forcing you to stay with him."

Needless to say, I no longer have female friends who complain about their men to me. Good.

If she is aware of your physical attraction for her, and she persists in her friendship with you, rubbing your face in her dating escapades with "jerks," she is using you for attention...but the fact that she doesn't want to hurt your feelings means she feels sorry for you. She pities you. If you understand what hypergamy means, where do you think that puts you on her attractiveness scale?

But the more likely scenario is that she is utterly clueless about your attraction to her. She is taking your platonic behavior at face value and unawares of your ulterior motives.

"Bit by bit, I'll make you depend on me."

As her emotional tampon. Her BFF...not her lover.

"You'll think about how long it would take to build this kind of connection again."

With another friend.

And in a moment of weakness...and lonlieness...you'll give in.

So ladies, explain to me how that is in any way "nice?"

"It'll feel comfortable and natural. You'll quietly try to revise your definition of love and try to be happy. And sometimes you will be."

It will feel comfortable and natural for "nice guy" because he's finally realized his goal. She, on the other hand, will be engaging her rationalization hamster to try and deal with the fact that she was "tricked" into bed by her "friend" in a moment of emotional distress and weakness. That hamster can only run for so long before it gets tired.

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - A Tsunami Warning has been issued for the State of Hawaii by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. The first of several waves resulting from a severe earthquake off Honshu Japan is expected to arrive in the State at approximately 2:55 a.m.

Once again, I'm drinking beer and observing the madness on TV as everyone runs to the stores and gas stations.

Got my fingers crossed...I hope this one is as harmless as it was last year...but somehow I don't think so.

I've been watching massive Tsunami waves rolling across the Pacific. The Chile earthquake last February did not generate such footage. There predicting 6 ft. surges hitting all Hawaii shores. This time looks far more serious.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

"This is the world of aspirational television...aspirational being a wildly popular term in TV-land. It's a world in which the majority of people are thin, attractive, witty, sassy, cool, fun-loving, thoughtful and happy; and who enjoy a life of cocktails, dick and shoes.

The basic theory behind aspirational programming is that if you watch beautiful, fun-loving people on TV, you'll somehow feel like they're your friends...whereas in reality of course, you're essentially just a tramp, staring at them from across the other-side of the room.

It seems as if every other show on TV these days has some sort of aspirational bent...but where did it all begin?

Like everything evil in the universe, it came from the world of advertising."

"Most of our romantic know-how comes courtesy of a flickering, fibbing machine which can break any relationship before it begins."

"According to research, when it comes to getting information about love, 94% of young people turn to their television, while only 33% ask Mom, and 17% Dad...BUT THE PLUG-IN-PARENT IS A LIAR and the fictional world it portrays seeps into your skull, setting a misleading framework."

"Studies show a link between the amount of television people watch and the likelihood that they'll believe certain unhelpful relationship myths. Chief among these myths, is the notion that there's a singular "Soul-Mate" out there in the world for you!"

"The first step towards "falling in love" is to find someone attractive...which you'd think would be a fairly organic process that occurs without much conscious effort on your part, but the chances are television has warped your notions of physical beauty by parading inordinately attractive people in front of you, morning, noon and night, thus raising your expectations to unsustainable heights, while simultaneously making YOU feel inferior.

It's telling that when you encounter somebody who's attractive in real life, they often seem faintly unreal...like they've been somehow photo-shopped into your world by the media."

Awhile back, Vox Day proposed a new taxonomy for classifying men's designations in the present day sexual marketplace. He's now expanded on his taxonomy by devoting an entire blog to discussing Game theory and has invited a few of his regular commenters (commonly referred to at Vox Popoli as "the ilk") to contribute posts from the various perspectives of the different classifications he proposed.

The blog is titled Alpha Game, and it's off to a good start with some excellent articles and contributions. If you haven't already, drop by and check it out.

While I find his tag line for the new blog clever (which I stole for the title to this post), I'm not nearly as optimistic as Vox is with regards to the possibility of saving Western Civilization.

I believe we as a society, have entered the beginning stages of a economic and cultural death spiral. We're well on our way to third world status and matriarchal dystopia.

To echo Captain Capitalism's frequent sign off on his posts regarding the economy and current state of our declining Western civilization, I say pour yourself a dram of whiskey, fire up a fine cigar, and ENJOY THE DECLINE.

----

Apparently Solomon II followed through with his threat of blogicide. Simon Grey saved one of his best posts, Drive Through Girlfriends, and posted it as a tribute.

I only copied chunks of one of his other best postings as blogfodder here.

I'll tip an extra dram of Whiskey this eve in honor of the brief lifespan of a very insightful and compelling blog in this neighborhood of the interwebz.

Monday, March 7, 2011

I was inspired to do so after reading a post at one of my favorite anti-vegan blogs Let Them Eat Meat. Ex-vegan Let Them Eat Meat blogger, Rhys Souyhan, interviewed ex-vegan Erim Bilgin, who cited the Unabomber's indictment of Leftism and modern society as the turning point for him in realizing why he had adapted such an extreme diet as a means of feeling better about himself.

I learned about primitivism and this weird domestic terrorist, Kaczynski. I had heard about the Unabomber, but didn’t really know who he was. Out of curiosity, I read his “manifesto”, and bam! I couldn’t sleep all night, because I was busy walking up and down my room as my entire vegan story flashed in front of my eyes and I was talking to myself and taking notes on a piece of paper and just having the biggest brainstorm of my life. I’ll go ahead and say my life totally changed that night.

In the following months, I had the good fortune to be on a trip so I didn’t have access to all the vegan forums I frequented. I kept eating raw vegan, but I could see everything from the outside now, objectively. I went ahead and started questioning the values that civilization injects into us in order to keep the system running. I didn’t stop there, I questioned ethics, laws and even the idea of an observable objective reality. As you might’ve guessed, I came to the conclusion that none of them really exist.

Even though I kept eating raw vegan at that point, the countdown had begun. Somewhere within me, the rebellious adolescent was finally waking up at 19 years of age. I was giving the finger to every ideology out there, and veganism got its share. I didn’t care who thought what or how much my family would laugh at their determined vegan-for-life ideologist, I was vegan no more.

{Question from Rhys} - Why was reading about Ted Kaczynski such a big influence?

I must say the primary reason was the clarity and precision with which he described the city-dwelling liberal personality. It simply hit me in the face, he was so direct, there was no evading it. He was describing me in his text, and for the first time I could see myself for what I really had been all my life: Not a courageous moral warrior walking alone the path of righteousness in a world of sin, but rather a butthurt scoundrel trying to grab onto every piece of power he can find while disguising it as being morally superior in order to feel better about himself.

Seeing that, seeing how I was a part of it, things were clear. I would be loyal only to myself — what I wanted out of life, not what society told me I should want. It was then an easy choice, I would reject civilization, I’d embrace the animal. Time to stop playing Dungeons and Dragons and get out and swim in rivers, chop through thick forest, open your chest against the blazing ice wind and sleep under a million stars.

So, this part of the interview peaked my interest in actually googling up the manifesto and having a read for myself. I must say, the manifesto was rather insightful. In so many ways, I've come to similar conclusions on my own...completely independent of the influence of the Unabomber. I could see why the thoughts Kaczynski expressed could inspire some serious rumination.

"I could see everything from the outside now, objectively. I went ahead and started questioning the values that civilization injects into us in order to keep the system running."

In some ways, this statement really is my own muse for this blog. This is why I've never sought to stick to a single "genre" of blogging material (MRA, anti-feminism, game, paleo, conspiracy theory...lol). Once I came to the realization that our entire system is corrupt and unsustainable, and that it uses people as nothing more than human resources to be chewed up and spit out once all value has been consumed, I began to question anything and everything I once thought I "knew." His manifesto reveals that he basically did the same thing - except he really wanted to try and do something about it. He wanted to make We the Sheeple WAKE UP.

The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that areintegrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can havesomething printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in somesuch way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume ofmaterial put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect.To make an impression on society with words is therefore almostimpossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) forexample. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted thepresent writings to a publisher, they probably would not have beenaccepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably wouldnot have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch theentertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even ifthese writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soonhave forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by themass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get ourmessage before the public with some chance of making a lastingimpression, we've had to kill people.

His analysis of the mass media culture and it's influence and means of distracting the people are dead on. His message had many valid points....but his actions reduced it to nothing more than the deranged rantings of a serial killer. I vaguely remember when he was caught and put on trial, as I barely paid attention to the story in the mass media. I simply bought the media storyline of "Whacknut Luddite Terrorist Finally Brought to Justice." Who would take the time to read a long-winded manifesto of a psychopath?

Well I guess now I must concede, that would be someone like me. I too have spent many a thought on the artificial constructs of our Brave New World Order society. And I found so much concordance with much of Kaczynski's insights. The following are some of the more of the profound thoughts he expressed for which I agree:

On law enforcement:

If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.

On freedom:

Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised.

On the basic human need for achievement to develop satisfaction in life:

Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.)

In the natural state, the human beings main goals are to find food, water, shelter and to procreate. Pass on those genes to propagate your genetic line. This is where the Kaczynski notes that our modern world has provided much of those basic necessities, giving many people the inability to find a proper channel for this need to engage in what he calls the "power process."

To try and meet this need, people channel their efforts into what he calls surrogate activity:

For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner driveshimself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of satisfying their biological needs, but that it is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.

I can relate to his description of surrogate activities to try and fulfill that need for the power process when you work in a job that doesn't scratch that itch. When I used to work for the State Government, I really was just punching the time clock and couldn't care less about my job performance. I just wanted my paycheck, and all I used to think about was my next martial art class that week, or the hunt I was planning to go on with my buddies that weekend. My work as a human resource in the machine of State Government bureaucracy did not satisfy my need for this power process.

This next insight will sound familiar to the regulars of the manosphere:

Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appointshis cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins is modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system.

This is precisely the rationale behind the promotion of feminism by the system. Except it's not about small-scale communities, it's about emasculating an entire gender so that we all become tools of the system. This is also why the system loves the single mother household. They are certainly families that have been emasculated right at the source. As for a divorce father who is forced into alimony and child support slavery, he is certainly nothing more than a tool as well; a beast of burden, driven to work for the system's benefit rather than his own.

Kaczynski saw the horrible truth of much of our modern condition. He wanted to do something about it. Ultimately he failed. He thought the only way to bring attention to the craziness of a crazy society, was to take extreme action.

His response was wrong, because it did not gain him the kind of attention he sought to draw to his ideas.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

It's supposed to be all Charlie, all the time. Game/PUA blogs, MRA blogs, The Spearhead, Paleo Blogs, conspiracy theory blogs...all the genres that make up my daily blog readings are all on the Charlie Sheen bandwagon.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

So I do a little googling to see what the fuss is all about...and it looks like Charlie is getting the Mel Gibson treatment...or as some commenter over at Roissy's put it, "he crossed the Jewbicon." (man, I literally laughed out loud when I read that.)

Better not criticize that certain ethnic/cultural identity, even if they DO run Hollywood and everyone knows it.

I used to think Black, feminist lesbian single mothers on welfare were the most protected minority class in politically correct Amerikkka. No, we now know that the most politically correct minority is the "chosen ones."

Ah well...while googling up Charlie, I found a most excellent, hilarious website, Live the Sheen Dream. What a fountain of knowledge! Some of my favs:

"Rock Bottom? That's a Fishing Term."

"Faith is for winners. Hope is for losers."

"The only thing I’m addicted to right now is winning."

"I don’t think people are ready for the message I’m delivering."

"You can’t process me with a normal brain."

"Why give an interview when you can leave a warning?"

"When I’m fighting a war there’s no room for sensitivity."

"I’m just giving them what I guess they want, I just don’t know if they can handle it. Pussies."

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

I've written about Soy before on the Spearhead (hence the recycled graphic...I particularly like this one as I made it myself).

I guess you could say I sort of also covered this topic when I included an installment in this series on Veganism.

But when it comes to Soy, it holds a special place in my heart. I used to be an enthusiastic soy consumer back in my dietary blue pill days. I regularly ate soy-substitute meat products like "vegetable chicken nuggest" and "vegetable hot dogs." I used to drink vanilla and chocolate soy milk on a daily basis. I'd even eat the abomination of all soy products...soy ice "cream."

I'm now wondering if all of that damn soy-based foods I was eating had played a part in suppressing my natural expressions of masculinity. Some people may find that a bit ludicrous, but two recent articles posted on PubMed now show that Soy does in fact mess with the human bodies production of sex hormones and can certainly effect your libido and sex drive.

Previous research has focused on the beneficial effects of soy and its active ingredients, isoflavones. For instance, soy consumption has been associated with lower cardiovascular and breast cancer risks.

This is the "blue pill" with regards to the supposed healthy benefits of Soy consumption. Of course, the real reason these claims are made in the first place is because they are usually based on surveys and statistical manipulations, instead of real, double blind studies employing the scientific method. In short, the kind of person that would eat soy, is also the type of person who would most likely not smoke, drink alcohol in excess, regularly exercise and avoid commonly recognized "junk foods." In other words, it's not the soy that leads to a healthier lifestyle, it's the person that strives to live a healthy lifestyle being tricked into believing Soy is a component of that healthy lifestyle.

Here's what happens when researchers actually look at the physiological results in a case study for which a patient switched to Veganism and used soy as his primary source of protein:

However, the number of reports demonstrating adverse effects of isoflavones due to their estrogenlike properties has increased. We present the case of a 19-y-old type 1 diabetic but otherwise healthy man with sudden onset of loss of libido and erectile dysfunction after the ingestion of large quantities of soy-based products in a vegan-style diet.

Blood levels of free and total testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) were taken at the initial presentation for examination and continuously monitored up to 2 y after discontinuation of the vegan diet. Blood concentrations of free and total testosterone were initially decreased, whereas DHEA was increased.

These parameters normalized within 1 y after cessation of the vegan diet. Normalization of testosterone and DHEA levels was paralleled by a constant improvement of symptoms; full sexual function was regained 1 y after cessation of the vegan diet.

This case indicates that soy product consumption is related to hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a combination of decreased free testosterone and increased DHEA blood concentrations after consuming a soy-rich diet. Hence, this case emphasizes the impact of isoflavones in the regulation of sex hormones and associated physical alterations.

Now is Viagra and all it's spinoffs like Levitra really necessary? If you are experiencing erectile dysfunction, you may want to consider looking at your ingredient labels on our food and avoid all that Soy that is now in our food supply. You should also avoid deep fried foods in most restaurants to boot, as most now use either Soybean oil or Canola oil in their deep fryers (canola is not much better either...).

While soy affects the sex hormone production in men, it seems to have a different effect on women:

INTRODUCTION: Persistent sexual arousal syndrome is an uncommon sexual complaint. Patients with this disorder can be distressed by the escalation of tension in the pelvic region and the prevailing necessity to diminish the pressure by self-stimulation. Patients frequently suffer from guilt or shame and often do not seek medical care. There are many potential causes of this disorder; however, a definitive etiology has yet to be elucidated.

CASE: The patient is a 44-year-old female who presented to her gynecologist for evaluation of dysmenorrhea and menometrorrhagia. During the review of systems, the patient reported 5-6 months of increased pelvic tension, not associated with an increase in desire that required her to self-stimulate to orgasm approximately 15 times daily. Upon further inquiry, the patient disclosed that her dietary regimen included soy intake in excess of 4 pounds per day that began approximately 1 month prior to the onset of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS: Although no known cause or cure of persistent sexual arousal syndrome has been identified to date, the success of reducing dietary of phytoestrogens in this patient may provide insight into the etiology of the disorder and suggest potential treatments.

Now, of course, this woman ate in excess of 4 lbs. of soy a day...damn, now that's a lot of soy...but nevertheless, it does point to the fact that soy isoflavones definitely alter the bodies hormone productions in both men and women.

Perhaps this is yet another reason why we have so many more feminized men and masculinized women in today's Brave New World Order?